A determined father in Massachusetts has delivered an early Father's Day gift to
non-custodial parents, the overwhelming majority of whom are dads.

Dr. Henry M. Fassler has successfully contested a 1998 Massachusetts law that
requires a non-custodial parent to have court certification as a non-batterer on
a yearly basis before he (or she) is allowed access to their children's school
records. The school system currently views all
non-custodial parents as guilty of battery until proven innocent. But all that
is going to change.

The specifics of Fassler's case: he wanted to see the academic class list for
his 17-year-old daughter Lindsay, who had asked him for help. No charge or
complaint had ever been filed against Fassler; he is on good terms with his
ex-wife and children.

When the school refused the class list, Fassler not only got angry, he also got
active. Last October, he complained to the Family Policy Compliance Office at
the U.S. Department of Education, challenging the statute as discriminatory. On
May 6, the DOE sent a letter to
Massachusetts' Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll, which warned that
"the commonwealth and every school district in Massachusetts is in
violation of federal law, and has been for years."

The letter explained, "non-custodial parents cannot be denied access to
school records unless there is evidence those 'rights have been specifically
revoked'." The government cannot stand between parent and child when no
evidence of abuse is present.

Father's rights advocates had fought against the law since its passage. (Indeed,
Fassler belongs to Fathers and Families, a leading voice in that battle.)
Suddenly, however, with millions in federal funding at stake, Driscoll has
indicated that a "new policy" will treat divorced parents more fairly.

The struggle in Massachusetts for non-custodial rights offers both hope and
lessons to divorced parents across North America.

One lesson is cautionary: even well-intended laws can be hijacked and used for
unintended political purposes. This one fact alone should prejudice reformers in
favor of repealing bad laws rather than stacking the new ones ever higher.

According to Fassler, the 1998 statute was first pushed by father's advocates
who wanted to clarify their parental right to school records. Then,
anti-domestic violence groups -- especially a Boston-based victims advocacy
group, Jane Doe Inc. (JDI) -- amended the measure to make a distinction between
custodial and non-custodial parents. Fassler claims the changes converted the
statute into an "abuse-prevention bill" that discriminated against the
very fathers who suggested it.

JDI has a history of receiving large tax-funded contracts to handle the training
and other assistance necessary to implement anti-abuse programs in
Massachusetts; it seems natural to assume that JDI wielded influence over the
policy-makers with whom it has established a
long and remunerative partnership. Nancy Scannell of JDI helped to draft the
statute.

By contrast, the father's rights advocates against whom JDI is often pitted
consist almost entirely of volunteers.

This is another lesson from the Massachusetts struggle. Grassroots organizations
and actions can prevail over generously tax-funded agencies, but it is crucial
to "follow the money." The crusade against the 1998 statute won out
only when Fassler called federal funding into question.

But following the money means more than this; the tax-funding of JDI should be
tracked and made public. As taxpayers, fathers have a right to know how such
funds are dispensed and to expose any political bias in the granting of
contracts.

Moreover, any organization that will profit from a legislative measure should be
excluded from drafting it. The exclusion is important. The Boston Globe quotes
Scannell as saying she "will eagerly participate in any discussion to
rewrite the bill." If the "non-profit" JDI will eagerly
cash checks based on such a rewrite, then JDI should not shape its language.

Yet, despite words of caution, the news from Massachusetts is heartening.
Non-custodial parents will no longer be viewed as abusive until proven innocent.
Fathers can play a greater role in their children's academic lives.

Radio host Glenn Sacks, who campaigned against the 1998 statute, explains the
importance of a father's presence. "As a former high school teacher.I could
teach a class for a few weeks and then have a pretty good idea which kids had
fathers in their lives and which ones didn't. I had few
discipline problems.but I always knew that there was one truly effective way to
get an errant boy to change his ways--call his dad and explain.that he needs to
leave work and come to the school to talk to me about his son's behavior. It was
100 percent effective."

That option may now be available to all of Massachusetts' teachers, parents, and
children.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The
Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many
books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and
Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002).
She lives with her husband in Canada.